Page 1

1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 31892 OF 2012 Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal & Anr.   …  Appellants               versus Union of India & Ors.                 …  Respondents

WITH  SLP(C) No.33452 of 2012 SLP(C) No.33455 of 2012 SLP(C) No.33560 of 2012 SLP(C) No.34001 of 2012 SLP(C) No.34020 of 2012 SLP(C) No.34255 of 2012 SLP(C) No.34264 of 2012 SLP(C) No.30156 of 2012 SLP(C) No.30086 of 2012 SLP(C) No.31349 of 2012 SLP(C) No.23715 of 2012 SLP(C) No.33908 of 2012 SLP(C) No.33909 of 2012 SLP(C) No.33897 of 2012

SLP(C)Nos.1118-1119 of 2013 SLP(C) No.35051 of 2012 SLP(C) No.39893 of 2012 SLP(C) No.381 of 2013

Page 2

2

J U D G M E N T

ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.

1. These Special Leave Petitions have been filed  

against orders passed by the Aurangabad Bench and  

the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court involving  

common  issues.   The  matters  relating  to  the  

Aurangabad Bench arise out of a common order dated  

4th October, 2012, in regard to admissions to the  

various institutions teaching the Indian form of  

medicines such as Ayurvedic, Unani, Siddha, etc.  

for the academic year 2011-12.

Special Leave Petition (C) No. 35051 of 2012  

has  been  filed  by  the  Umar  Bin  Khattab  Welfare  

Trust against the judgment of the Aurangabad Bench  

of the Bombay High Court against an order dated  

29th December, 2010, regarding admissions for the  

self-same  period.   The  other  Special  Leave  

Petitions relate to the common orders dated 13th

Page 3

3

July,  2012  and  2nd  August,  2012  passed  by  the  

Nagpur  Bench  of  the  Bombay  High  Court  regarding  

admissions  for  the  year  2011-12.   Yet,  another  

Special Leave Petition regarding admissions for the  

year 2012-13, has been filed by the Backward Class  

Youth  Relief  Committee  and  Another  against  the  

order dated 9th August, 2012, passed by the Nagpur  

Bench of the Bombay High Court.

2. The common issue involved in all the Special  

Leave Petitions is in regard to the refusal by the  

Government of India, in its Department of Ayurveda,  

Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy,  

hereinafter  referred  to  as  "AYUSH",  to  grant  

permission to the colleges to admit students for  

the  academic  year  2011-12,  for  the  BAMS/  Post  

Graduate courses.  Such permission appears to have  

been  refused  on  account  of  various  deficiencies  

relating to the infrastructure and teaching staff,

Page 4

4

which had not been rectified and brought into line  

with the minimum standard norms.

3. From  the  materials  as  disclosed  and  the  

submissions  made  on  behalf  of  the  respective  

parties, it appears that in the case of Shri Morvi  

Sarvajanik  Kelavni  Mandal  Sanchalit  MSKM  B.Ed.  

College v. National Council for Teachers' Education  

and  Ors. [(2012)  2  SCC  16],  this  Court,  while  

rejecting the prayer of the institutions to permit  

students to continue in unrecognized institutions,  

observed  that  mushroom  growth  of  ill-equipped,  

under-staffed  and  unrecognized  educational  

institutions has caused serious problems with the  

students who joined the various courses.

4. As far as medical institutions are concerned,  

the  procedure  relating  to  the  recognition  of  

medical colleges as well as admission therein was  

governed  by  the  Indian  Medicine  Central  Council  

Act,  1970,  hereinafter  referred  to  as  "the  1970

Page 5

5

Act",  which  was  amended  in  2003,  to  incorporate  

Sections  13A,  13B  and  13C,  which  provided  the  

procedure for establishing new colleges and making  

provision  for  seeking  prior  permission  of  the  

Central Government in respect of the same.  The  

amendment also attempted to bring in reforms in the  

existing colleges by making it mandatory for them  

to  seek  permission  from  the  Central  Government  

within  a  period  of  three  years  from  their  

establishment.   Having  regard  to  the  said  

amendments, the Central Council of Indian Medicine,  

with  the  previous  sanction  of  the  Central  

Government, framed Regulations, in exercise of the  

powers conferred on it by Section 36 of the 1970  

Act.  The  said  Regulations  were  named  as  the  

Establishment of New Medical College, Opening of  

New  or  Higher  Course  of  Study  or  Training  and  

Increase of Admission Capacity by a Medical College  

Regulations, 2003, hereinafter referred to as "the  

2003 Regulations".  Regulation 6(1)(e) of the 2003

Page 6

6

Regulations provides for applications to be made by  

a medical college owning and managing a hospital in  

Indian medicines containing not less than 100 beds  

with necessary facilities and infrastructure.  The  

Central Council of Indian Medicine further framed  

Regulations in 2006 called as the Indian Medicine  

Central  Council  (Permission  to  Existing  Medical  

Colleges)  Regulations,  2006,  hereinafter  referred  

to as "the 2006 Regulations".  Regulation 5(1)(d)  

of the 2006 Regulations provides that the applicant  

college  would  have  to  be  owning  and  managing  a  

minimum of 100 beds for undergraduate courses and  

150 beds for post graduate courses, which conforms  

to the norms relating to minimum bed strength and  

bed  occupancy  for  In-patients  and  the  number  of  

Out-patients.   

5. When the 2003 Amendment was effected to the  

1970  Act,  three  years'  time  was  given  to  the  

existing colleges to remove the deficiencies.  The

Page 7

7

2006 Regulations provided a further period of two  

years to remove the deficiencies and even relaxed  

the minimum standards in that regard. Even after  

the expiry of two years, the colleges were given  

further opportunities to remove the shortcomings by  

granting  them  conditional  permission  for  their  

students for the academic years, 2008-09, 2009-10  

and 2010-11.  It is only obvious that the minimum  

standards  were  insisted  upon  by  the  Council  to  

ensure  that  the  colleges  achieved  the  minimum  

standards gradually.

6. It may be noted that there was little or no  

response from the institutions concerned in regard  

to removal of the deficiencies in their respective  

institutions and it is only when the notices were  

given to shut down the institutions that they woke  

up from their slumber and approached the courts for  

relief.

Page 8

8

7. In many of these cases, permission was given by  

the Courts to the institutions concerned to accept  

admission forms, but they were directed not to pass  

any  orders  thereupon  till  the  decision  of  this  

Court in these Special Leave Petitions.

8. Appearing for the Petitioners, Mr. R.N. Dhorde,  

learned Senior Advocate, tried to impress upon us  

that the deficiencies had already been removed and  

that is why permission was subsequently given for  

the  admission  of  students  for  the  year  2012-13.  

Mr. Dhorde submitted that since the deficiencies  

had  been  removed,  there  could  be  no  reason  for  

permission  for  the  academic  year  2011-12  to  be  

withheld, since a large number of applications had  

been  received  from  students  intending  to  obtain  

admission  for  the  said  year.   It  was  submitted  

that, although, the academic year had come to an  

end,  the  college  authorities  would  make  all  

arrangements  for  the  applicants  to  be  able  to

Page 9

9

complete the course for the entire year within six  

months so as to bring them up to the level of the  

second year.  Mr. Dhorde also submitted that in the  

event  such  permission  was  not  granted,  the  

continuity  of  the  courses  would  be  disrupted.  

Giving examples of how the deficiencies had been  

removed, Mr. Dhorde contended that the Department  

of AYUSH had taken a prior decision to reject the  

application for permission to admit students for  

the year 2011-12.  It is pursuant to such decision  

that all the applications were rejected.

9. However, there is one matter (SLP(C) No. 31892  

of 2012) filed by the Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal  

and Another, wherein the prayer of the Petitioner-

Institution had been rejected only on the ground  

that  instead  of  recording  the  presence  of  100  

patients each day in the Out-Patient Department,  

the average had been found to be 98.55%.  

Page 10

10

10. Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, learned Senior Advocate,  

who  had  appeared  with  Mr.  Dhorde,  had  submitted  

that the said figure was not absolutely accurate  

since the calculation had been based on 300 days  

and not 292 days, on account of certain holidays  

which had gone unnoticed.  In the fact situation of  

the case, the said institution could be treated on  

a  different  level  from  the  other  institutions,  

whose applications had been rejected for various  

other deficiencies.

11. At this juncture, it may be noticed that we had  

occasion to dismiss SLP(C) No. 35367 of 2012, on  

4th January, 2013, on the ground that orders as  

prayed  for  therein  would  have  the  effect  of  

problems  being  created  for  the  completion  of  

semester, which was to end in the month of June,  

2013, since more than six months had elapsed since  

the semester had begun.

Page 11

11

12. The prayer made on behalf of the Petitioners  

was  strongly  opposed  by  Mr.  Sidharth  Luthra,  

learned Additional Solicitor General, who pointed  

out that despite a moratorium of five years since  

the  amendment  of  the  1970  Act  in  2003  and  the  

framing  of  the  2006  Regulations  in  2006,  the  

institutions had failed to remove the deficiencies,  

as pointed out by the Council.  The learned ASG  

submitted  that  the  practice  of  medicine,  in  

whatever form, which was recognised by the Central  

Government and was regulated by the 1970 Act and  

the  Regulations  framed  thereunder,  could  not  be  

compromised by lowering the standards required to  

maintain  the  excellence  of  the  profession.   The  

learned ASG submitted that once the deficiencies  

had been removed, permission was once again granted  

to admit students for the academic year, 2012-13.  

The learned ASG submitted that the sympathy towards

Page 12

12

the students, who had been allowed to file their  

application forms, could not be a ground to grant  

permission where more than half the period of study  

was already over. The learned ASG submitted that  

where  a  certain  degree  of  professionalism  was  

required, there was no scope of conducting bridge  

courses to enable the students for that particular  

year  to  catch  up  with  the  students  of  the  

subsequent  semester.   The  learned  ASG  submitted  

that in the interest of the medical profession and  

those who are the beneficiaries of the system, the  

Special  Leave  Petitions  were  liable  to  be  

dismissed.

13. It is no doubt true, that applications have  

been  filed  by  a  large  number  of  students  for  

admission in the Institutions imparting education  

in the Indian form of medicine, with the leave of  

the Court, but it is equally true that such leave  

was granted without creating any equity in favour

Page 13

13

of the applicants. Those who chose to file their  

applications did so at their own risk and it cannot  

now be contended that since they have been allowed  

to  file  their  applications  pursuant  to  orders  

passed by the Court, they had acquired a right to  

be admitted in the different Institutions to which  

they had applied.  The privilege granted to the  

candidates cannot now be transformed into a right  

to be admitted in the course for which they had  

applied.  Apart from anything else, one has to take  

a practical view of the matter since more than half  

the term of the first year is over.  Though it has  

been  contended  on  behalf  of  the  Institutions  

concerned  that  extra  coaching  classes  would  be  

given  to  the  new  entrants,  it  is  practically  

impossible for a student to pick up the threads of  

teaching for the entire first year when half the  

course had been completed.  

Page 14

14

14. It  is not  for us  to judge  as to  whether a  

particular  Institution  fulfilled  the  necessary  

criteria for being eligible to conduct classes in  

the concerned discipline or not.  That is for the  

experts to judge and according to the experts the  

Institutions were not geared to conduct classes in  

respect of the year 2011-12. It is also impractical  

to  consider  the  proposal  of  the  colleges  of  

providing  extra  classes  to  the  new  entrants  to  

bring  them  upto  the  level  of  those  who  have  

completed  the  major  part  of  the  course  for  the  

first year.  

15. We are not, therefore, inclined to interfere  

with the orders of the High Court impugned in these  

Special  Leave  Petitions  and  the  same  are,  

accordingly, dismissed.

Page 15

15

16. Having  regard  to  the  facts  involved,  the  

parties will bear their own costs.   

...................CJI.    (ALTAMAS KABIR)

.....................J.    (ANIL R. DAVE)

.....................J.  (VIKRAMAJIT SEN)

NEW DELHI DATED: MARCH 06, 2013.